And if the proponent of this statement means merely that people fight one another (1) over the imamate—that is, the rule of a particular person at that time, with one group fighting alongside him and another rebelling against him—then this has nothing whatsoever to do with the doctrine of either Ahl al-Sunnah or the Shia. It is well known that when people who share one religion and one Prophet fight one another, each side necessarily puts someone forward and vests him with authority. Each group thus fights to uphold the authority of the person whom they themselves have made their leader.

Such people, however, are not fighting for the religious doctrine that the imamate was established (2) for Ali (3) by explicit designation, or that the caliphates of the first three caliphs were invalid. Rather, most of them acknowledge the legitimacy of all three.

It has already been shown that the Companions did not fight one another over the caliphates of Abū Bakr (4), Umar, and Uthmān, nor over the disagreements among themselves. It is therefore clear that their caliphates were established without any sword being drawn at all, whereas the sword was drawn during Ali’s caliphate. If this constitutes grounds for criticism, then such criticism applies specifically to the one during whose time the sword was drawn among the Umma.

This is an argument for the Khārijites, whose argument is stronger than that of the Shia, just as their swords are stronger than those of the Shia. Their religion is sounder, and they are truthful and do not lie. Yet notwithstanding this, it has been established by the widely transmitted Sunnah of the Prophet—may Allah bless him